C.A. Nos.576-577 of 2008 in -1-
C.P. No.196 of 1997
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.A. Nos.576-577 of 2008 in
C.P. No.196 of 1997
Date of Decision: 21.01.2009
IN THE MATTER OF
M/s Altos India Ltd. (in liquidation)
and
IN THE MATTER OF
An Application under Rule 129(3) of Companies Court Rules 1959.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
-.-
Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate.
Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate for
Official Liquidator.
K. KANNAJ J.
******
C.A. No.576 of 2008
Application allowed.
Exemption from filing certified copies/typed copy of Annexures
A-1 to A-6 is granted.
C.A. No.577 of 2008
1. Vide order dated 27.03.2008, the Ex-Directors of the Company
had been directed to submit fresh bill giving details of actual expenses for
preparation and making of statement of affairs with relevant proof within a
period of four weeks to enable the Official Liquidator to examine the same
and on being satisfied, sanction the same.
C.A. Nos.576-577 of 2008 in -2-
C.P. No.196 of 1997
2. This order was in terms of Section 454(4) where a person making
or concurring in making the statement of affairs and affidavit as required by
Section 454 shall be paid out of the assets of the Company, such costs and
expenses incurred. After the passing of the order, it appears that the death
of Mr. Dadan Bhai, one of the Directors of the Company had been brought
to the attention of the Official Liquidator and an authority letter of the only
remaining Director Mr. N.S. Parulaker along with power of attorney had
been communicated to the Official Liquidator. Mr. Parulaker had appointed
Sh. Kapil Dev Aggarwal, Advocate as his standing counsel in connection
with winding up affairs of the company and a power of attorney had also
been signed in his favour. In such capacity, the power of attorney- Mr. K.D.
Aggarwal has filed the report giving out the details of work done. The
statement of affairs had already been submitted in October, 2000 and
reported to have been further resubmitted personally on 27.05.2001 before
the Official Liquidator. The revised bill of fee for the year ending
30.09.1994 and 30.09.1995 have been submitted as follows:-
“Audit Fee
(Replaced with Fee for preparation of SOA Rs.12,96,875/-
based on audited balance sheet of the Company
for years ending 30.09.2004 and 30.09.2005 as
settled with erstwhile Case)Nos. of additional office hours spent (Principle) Rs.6,46,800/-
(22*7*7*600)(To check the records of DRTs cases u/s 138 etc.
Based on Notification of ICAI w.e.f. 1st April,
2000 enacted under Act of Parliament)
____________Total Rs.19,43,675/-
Add interest for the year 2000 to 2008 @12% Rs.16,32,687/-
____________
Grand Total Rs.35,76,362/-
(Rs. Thirty Five Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Three Hundred
C.A. Nos.576-577 of 2008 in -3-
C.P. No.196 of 1997
Sixty Two only).”
3. The Official Liquidator has rejected the bill and filed a report in
terms thereof.
4. The counsel for the Official Liquidator contends that the
requirement of Section 454(4) is that a person making or concurring in
making the statement and affidavit alone shall be paid the costs and
expenses. The Ex-Director who had filed the statement of affairs had died
and consequently the application could have been filed by the legal
representative of the Ex-Director. In response to this, it is pointed out by the
counsel to the applicant that order of this Court had directed only that the
details of expenses shall be given by the Ex-Directors and having regard to
the fact that one of the Directors had already died, the surviving Director
had the authority to present the details of expenses and the details so given
through the power of attorney of the Ex-Director was bound to be examined
and accepted by the Official Liquidator.
5. It will be asking for the impossible to expect that the Director
who was originally submitted the statement of affairs to produce proof,
when he has already died. It may not also be possible to obtain the details,
who may not have any personal knowledge of the details of expenses for the
preparation of statement of arrairs. The only competent person would be,
therefore, any other Director who has the personal knowledge and who can
concur in the statement of affairs already filed. The Official Liquidator
would, therefore, re-examine the issue if the surviving Director concurs in
the statement of affairs already given in the manner required under Section
454(4) and examine the details of expenses with reference to the actual
work done and also examine the correctness of the details as set out in the
C.A. Nos.576-577 of 2008 in -4-
C.P. No.196 of 1997
bill revised on 23.04.2008.
6. The matter is, therefore, remitted to the Official Liquidator again
for re-examining the issue and passing the appropriate order in the light of
observations made above.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
January 21, 2009
Pankaj*